> Dave Carrigan wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:00:06PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>>
>> > this makes it IMHO a plausible release goal to get rid of 2.95
>> > maintenance for etch.
>>
>> No it is not. Just because debian packages don't use 2.95 doesn't mean
>> that end users have the same luxury.
>
> The need for gcc-2.95 usually means the source code is broken (in C99
> terms) and should be fixed. Do you have an example of an use case where
> this is unfeasible, and which is important enough to justify continued
> maintenance of gcc 2.95?
Device driver development for embedded systems? There are embedded systems,
including x86-based, that run kernels which fail to compile with gcc >=
3.x.
Also, people have some code (old completed internal projects, etc), which
probably would never be ported to newer C++ standards (it's plainly too big
job), but which are still useful to keep working - e.g. for
demonstration/education/similar purposes.
I have to deal with the both above situations. And I believe I'm far not
alone here. So there is user benefit from keeping gcc 2.95 in usable state.
Not fixing internal compiler bugs - user who faces old compiler's failure
to build code should seriously consider switching to newer versions - but
just keeping packages installable and usable.